Study Guide 3 PHIL140 4 pages Animal Rights: • Tibor Machan: animals do not have rights because they are not moral agents (aka they are not human because humans are of a different species since we cannot interbreed with animals). We should treat them humanely given that they are sentient creatures but we do not have duties to them, nor do they have rights • Moral agents have duties, responsibilities and are liable for their actions o Criticism for this definition is that children are moral agents but do not satisfy the criteria above • Animals could be protected by human duties without having rights themselves • Humans: death > suffering v. animals: suffering > death • Animals protected by our duty not to make them suffer Rights: • Right: someone has a right to x if someone else has a duty to them regarding x • 3 elements of rights: person who has the right, persons who have a duty, the right itself • Conventional rights: held by virtue of convention – your duty to someone is condition on them doing something (example: a contract) • Natural rights: held independent of convention, we have them because we are a certain kind of being (example Jefferson’s life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) • Forfeitable rights: right that can be lost as a consequence of your actions • It is possible to have duties without rights Reciprocity criterion of moral standing: something has moral standing if it is capable and willing to cooperate Death penalty • Widespread support is declining • Punishment: intentional infliction of pain or deprivation for an offense • Accounts of punishment:o Deterrence (change of behavior through alteration of beliefs – forward looking) only punish if it deters the crime  Death penalty: no proven deterrence effects – not an acceptable punishment  Criticism: using people as means o Retribution (lex talionis: give a proportional punishment if you are guilty – backward looking): punish only if deserved  Isn’t it generally believed that you should only punish if it is deserved and that the punishment should be proportional – isn’t it your conception of proportion that is at issue?  Determines how much to punish criminal  Supports the death penalty o Rehabilitation: cure instead of punishing o Moral education – punish to teach (agent?) a moral lesson • Arguments against: o Progress: the only democracy to keep the death penalty (some trends = mistaken) o Death penalty = murder o Value/sanctity of life o Death penalty = violation of wrongdoers right to life  Right to life even if inalienable may be forfeitable by murdering someone (opponents argue that right to life is a natural right) or the right to life might be conventional (only respected for you as long as you respect if for others) o Death penalty violates human dignity because it is not a natural death and the means may not be dignified  Death penalty upholds someone’s dignity by recognizing that they are conscious and that their choice to murder was self-made o Death penalty administration is unfair o Error is possible and the penalty is irreversible o Death penalty is 3x as expensive as life imprisonment o Brutalization of society (makes the law seem awe-ful)o Methods of execution: less painful or less messy? • Conclusion: case for the death penalty rests on retribution and it hard to show that capital punishment is required for retribution War • Innocence: o Common: not guilty o Causal: not a threat • Civilian deaths (when do they occur?): o Human shields (enemy applies the “don’t hurt noncombatants principle” that they trust their – if you kill the civilian in this case their death was not intended (it was foreseen) so it is moral o Bystanders o Strategic bombing • Just war theory: justice of war and justice in war o Justice of war:  Just cause  Self defense  Preemptive  Preventive  Correct an injustice (aka retributive war?)  Humanitarian  Establish democratic state  Just intention  Declared by a competent authority  Proportionality  Reasonable expectation of success  Last resort o Justice in war:  Proportionality  Discrimination (does not intend to harm noncombatants) • War in Iraq o Humanitarianism = one defense (however this war was not really humanitarian)o Not really a last resort, and at this point was not proportional (lots of unnecessary civilian deaths) • Types of war: o Preemptive: war against an imminent and certain threat (example 6 day wars – armies visible and ready to attack at borders) o Preventive: war against a future threat (less certain than preemptive war)  Support: might be better now (less lives)  Criticism: might lead to more wars • Strategic bombing = a type of narrow political